So since this post kind of went a way I wasn't intending it to, and since everyone says DMOZ is misleading or not what they say they are, then why hasn't it been noted more publicly? Why did I have to learn about this by coming to a message board and reading all of this stuff? Just a question... And if DMOZ really is not what it advertises it is, can anyone suggest a better alternative?
An alternative is buying a link review in the directories section from hundred of owners there if your boss has money to spend or the Solicitations and Announcements for Free Links.
I wouldn't take all you hear about ODP here as gospel (some do have an ax to grind, make your own call)... but two other "Google Authority" directories frequently mentioned in the same breath are... * Yahoo - http://www.dir.yahoo.com Fee for expedited review = $299 recurring annually * Best of the Web - http://www.botw.org - Fee for review $79.95 recurring annually or $239.95 one time fee) These cost money, and they do not guarantee inclusion if you pay (it really IS areview fee, and people have been turned down, so make sure the site meets their stated criteria), but then if they did auto-add on payment they'd be plain paid directories and would get the same deranking treatment Google just nailed those with. Personally I've suggested Dmoz adopt a paid review system for those that just HAVE to get considered ASAP. It'd remove a huge bone of contention about bribes and eliminate a lot of unecessary BS (IMO)... but I don't think my opinion is in the majority on that one.
You'll remove a chunk of the bulk the Admins are receiving and they would be very pissed off. Also in the Adult Section.
It is being noted publicly right now in this forum and elsewhere. Your getting conflicting information because you're reading old news. dmoz once was a very important directory and that information is still out there - it doesn't have a date on it so people reading it for the first time assume that it's current or that it's still correct. If you're running a business you need to advertise, I'd use adwords. If you want free advertising then you need to get a lot of other sites to link to you. You have to give them a reason to link to you, write some free how-to guides, offer free downloads, find something, the more valuable the better. Then people will link to you and that will lead to more free search engine traffic. But there isn't just one thing that you can do to make a successful site, unless you have a lot of advertising money, you have to get creative and do a bunch of little things that add up over time. For example I've donated articles, images, and diagrams to magazines and other websites in exchange for links and I saw a guy who got his website on the news because he invented something called "no email friday" he had his employees talk to each other on fridays instead of emailing - who would think you could get on the news for something like that?
Popo - I'm aware there are instances of backdoor payments (needless to say I don't believe that's as common a problem as you do) but even if you were right it'd still be a "win" if paid/expedited reviews were set up. Solves the bribe/corruption allegations whether you're right or not, and if your thesis were correct it'd get rid of another problem as well. As you know I'd delete the Adult/ cat in a heartbeat if allowed anyway.
Well we both run businesses (Real Estate and Restoration accordingly) and a common practice of the BIG PEEPS in any line of business is control. Who controls the market gets the bulk. That is common and that is a problem. I agree with these as there are many things that can be done. Any charity or foundation can benefit from it. Just one thing they are very rare of a commodity. We might be good at what we do but their the best. The champions of the champions in anticipation. Step right up in Wikipedia while DMOZ is still having a hard time in organizing. Uh-uh. I'll send you an axe right away if you have Sears or Lowes there.
Dmoz has never claimed to be a crucial means of advertising websites. That story was put around by other people, some of whom genuinely believed it to be true, and others have used the claim to promote their SEO services.
If ODP wanted to imply that it would be that editors would not be allowed to make the statement that easily clarifies if there is a problem, but it is intended to recognise the work of every editor who has worked in ODP to make it what it is, it took that many editors to create the directory as it is now. The truth also is that at times how we present editors is debated and I have seen that we have tried to establish how many 'active editors' we have and it really is quite difficult. Is it the number who can edit, is it the number who have edited in the last 3 months, is it the number who have done over x edits this year add to that a constantly changing editor base with new editors and ones leaving and it is not as clear cut as it looks. I think your last point is based on the fact that you believe it is misleading and then add two and two together and come up with 500.
Yeah, I don't think so. The number of active editors is the number of editors who have accounts. It's not the number of accounts minus those who only make minimum edits plus those expired accounts of editors who were at one time really good...unless you goal is to confuse and mislead people. And if I make a claim on my site like "11,000 employees" it means my company has 11,000 employees. If I say "5000 photographs" it means 5000 photographs, etc.
You obviously will believe what you want to believe, but I have explained why the number is there and why it is difficult to know exact numbers of what might be described as "active editors". I just happen to believe that if it were possible to quote a figure, and genuinely within ODP I have only heard round, guestimate type figures for active editors, using figures with editors who have made 10 edits in the last two years, and they exist, that people would argue they are not active. If you are at present an editor you can check this out in the forums yourself. If/when I leave (or booted, if stories on here are to be believed) I know that some of my editing will live on and I believe that I deserve at least to be acknowledged as having contributed and that editor number continues to do that.
Yes, and I have explained why it is not difficult, and why someone would want to make it seem difficult. Facts are facts whether you believe in them or not and this is a fact: The number of active editors is the number of editors who have accounts. Yeah your efforts should be acknowledged, why not say "over 75,000 contributing editors since 1998 and over 7000 current editors"? The misleading statements and half truths are meant to make themselves out to be more than they really are.
Gee Winifred, you claim to be an editor, you're as responsible as anyone here for what is shown on the front page. If you object to it, use whatever editor pull you think we have & fix it yourself, or send an email to AOL (who knows, maybe they'll read it). Nobody here has any affect on that issue (and it was a molehill to start with, no reason to get all excited).
The question was posed to Revr. And I have, for the better part, stopped bringing her up myself, though others seem to have an inability to do so. She was why I left, when someone says otherwise I will correct them. When that person is not willing to talk about her, then that shows they are doing nothing but trolling. I See that Revr was on last night as he did post in several other threads. I'll take his not answering in this one that he is just a troll that is doing nothing but hijacking threads so that he can talk about me. Sad really that it's the editor rather then the ex-editor that is the true troll. Don't worry about it. They will not change their minds. They seem to think that that it's within their rights to mislead to the general public. The sad part of it is that it IS within their rights to not only mislead the public but to also lie. But do not question internally, your cats will be be given the once over, and you'll be called a troll. I know, it happened to me when I questioned their policies.
here lies the misconception : the "policies" can not be made by the so called meta community ... but only by AOL AFAIK . Secondly , you may recall or not know : several metas even question " their policies" , as a newbie editor even i have been able to question policies , and i have not been booted . are / were your criticisms constructive ? that , someone has not replied to your thread ... does not speak about their lack of answers , but you should know , there exists a protocol to reply and this might be one of those cases , where someone is guessing whether your questions are worth a reply and if so , how . ALWAYS .... ALWAYS , remember , a volunteer editor is NOT REQUIRED to reply to your thread ... not only does he not get paid for it , also because he has much much better things to do .
You spout more crap every day, Q. If you really knew, ie if you could still read the internal forums, you would know that many editors even criticise staff and continue as editors and you would know that one of them would be me. You continually tell us that you left, so how can you even know that your cats were given a once over, internally would mean while you were still an editor, and you were not called a troll simply for disagreement. Many other editors were making similar criticisms, and you know that I cannot say anymore because we promise confidentiality, and they were not called trolls, maybe you should re-read your own posts, you seem to have kept them, and that might give you a better clue.
Yeah, yeah, big words for someone that would not give even the slightest comment in an external thread concerning the person you supposedly stand up for. Though you certainly seem to have no issues berating those that do stand up for her. Your ethics and morals on the matter are clear. My cat was gone over by several meta editors. They changed things that were not even mine and things got rejected for spelling errors. Funny that a meta would want me to spell magick without the K in a cat dedicated to magick with the K Go check, the edits are there for the looking... I was civil in the internal forums and was called a troll. The Admin that called me a troll would not answer anything I asked him accept to call me a troll again. Show me where I was uncivil to ANYONE in ANY of the threads. If you do not believe me, prove it to yourself. I stood up for my rights as an editor, I stood up for the Rights and Honor of CompostAnnie. I was called a troll for it and was told to "shut up and edit". Are you denying these things? If I was somehow trolling for standing up for someone that you claim to have stood up for, then why were you not called a troll or told to shut up and edit? Was it because I was the only one that actually had the nerve to say it out loud...and the one with the nerve to actually say it first? I was the first to bring it up after all. I started a thread asking why there was not an appeals process for those that were fired, and was told I didn't know what I was talking about. Yet Compost Annie has yet to have a means of an appeal. Funny that... And to think, I was the one in the wrong.
I agree, it's a molehill, my point isn't really about that one claim, basically what I'm saying is that if they would mislead you in one way, you can be sure that they'll mislead you in another.
Q, I am so glad that I am not counted as one of your friends, because you obviously like inflicting pain on them. You have again used a name in argument and seeking argument that does not wish to be used in that way and you seem completely insensitive to the pain that inflicts on her. If you have one once of grace, desist. Poopo your childish, schoolground humor may amuse you, but it matches someone picking their nose (and chewing it?) and it gives me a much clearer picture as to why you are booted and bitter and not an ODP editor anymore.